You have got to be kidding me

[Plebe]

Mississippi State and Oregon were the 4 and 5. Louisville and UConn were 3 and 6.

No, this is not true. Louisville was the 3, UConn the 5. The committee chair explicitly said that UConn was the top #2 seed. The committee can and does deviate from the S-curve for geography reasons. In this case, that allowed UConn to stay in Albany rather than going to Portland.

 

[ABCDFE]

I agree, there are inconsistencies with how the Committee described their logic and to some degree their was a lack of respect for the AAC and what CT accomplished. But to be honest, if you start to break down the bracket, we are in position, if we play well, to make it to the FF. I like our opponents in the first 2 rounds and then I'd rather play maryland than oregon state. Louisville I think is the best matchup we could have gotten in the EE game so for all of us fans, we should take a deep breath (its ok to act mad though ).

I know that we always say motivation at this point shouldn't be required, but I do believe the coaching staff will put a chip on the team's shoulder and we all know that when you get to tough points in the game, mentally is where the game is most likely won.

I like our chances at the FF. And if then one game at a time, we can hope that the team is hitting on all cylinders and the 2 off the bench can provide valuable contributions.

 

[PacoBlaze]

Yikes, this isn't true at all.

The RPI and SOS are just numbers that get crunched through a formula. They are not determined by the polls and they don't see the name on the jersey.

So if a team in the MAC is 29-2 and a team in the SEC is 29-2, then they should be rated the same but they are not because the formula has already determined that the SEC is a tougher conference, for whatever reason.
All formulas and programs are given specific parameters.

 

[CTBballfan243]

I cant believe it but looking back I guess I can expect it. UConn lost the past two seasons in the NCAA's. Saniya driving the lane get knocked and no call and if she had gone to the line for 2 and made one the game is pretty much over. Then last season UConn outscores ND from the field and looses when ND goes to the line 20 times more and wins in OT. No w this. You have got to be kidding me. To top it off Tenn makes the tourney with a loosing record in their conference and they dug up all kinds of excuses to put them in????????? Give somebody else a chance. You can tell Im pissed. Please excuse the language. This is a slap in the face for the team that has put the new WCBB on the map. Just like a few years ago when Penn St was a one seed and DT and UConn blew them out we are sucker punched again. I am not happy at all. This is a disgrace to a team and a coaching staff that has set the bar at another level. With 3 AA's playing and two top HS POY and with only 2 losses and with a better SOS then one other 1 seed UConn of all teams is ranked 2. I need to be put on the NCAA selection committee. Not only me but we need to get some other people on there. UConn of all teams deserves and has earned a one seed. You know what it wont matter. UConn barring injuries and foul trouble will win the regionals . I would like to say barring foul trouble on both sides meaning to many fouls called on UConn and no calls on their opponents. I saw it last season and its become a novelty against ND over the years. Lets have a level playing field. Ive said enough for today. I am not happy when my team gets slapped in the face. Be Fair.

The NCAA tournament (men's and women's) is about making money for the Power Conferences. The P5 will eventually split from the NCAA and have their own tournament. UConn will eventually go the way of Old Dominion and LaTech.

 

[JordyG]

"No trait is more justified than revenge in the right time and place." Meir Kahane

The Time: March 31, 2019

The Place: Albany, New York.

I've never been an adherent of the phrase, "Revenge is a meal best served cold". Frankly, to me revenge is a great meal when it's served. The temperature or the condition(s) of vittles to me are irrelevant.

 

[Plebe]

So if a team in the MAC is 29-2 and a team in the SEC is 29-2, then they should be rated the same but they are not because the formula has already determined that the SEC is a tougher conference, for whatever reason.
All formulas and programs are given specific parameters.

Not true. It's entirely possible for a MAC team to have a higher overall SOS than a SEC team.

Buffalo has a SOS rank of #48. Auburn's is #71. If Buffalo and Auburn had finished with identical win/loss records, Buffalo's RPI would be higher (factoring out any differential due to home vs. away games). In fact, both teams finished with 9 losses; Buffalo was 23-9 while Auburn was 21-9. But Buffalo's RPI rank was significantly higher (#25 vs. #50).

Another illustrative SEC/MAC comparison: Georgia vs. Kent State. Both teams finished 18-12. Georgia's SOS ranking was #97, while Kent State's was #86. And Kent State's RPI ranking was accordingly higher (#83 vs. #112).

 

[JordyG]

Anyone who’s fine with UConn’s seeding just is not paying attention.

The message today is that if UConn wants to be comfortable that they’re a one seed, they need to go undefeated.

It took a while for the selection committees to feel comfortable relegating UConn because of the American, but now that the seal is broken, it’ll be the rule.

Nonsense. If UConn had beaten Baylor or Louisville they'd be a number one seed. And yeah, UConn is in the AAC through no real fault of their own, but why punish Louisville or MSS. for being in far more difficult conferences? And I don't really give two spits. How does this seeding hurt UConn? They'd still have to beat Louisville to make the FF. Keep circling people, there's a dead principle down there somewhere.

 

[Golden Husky]

No, this is not true. Louisville was the 3, UConn the 5. The committee chair explicitly said that UConn was the top #2 seed. The committee can and does deviate from the S-curve for geography reasons. In this case, that allowed UConn to stay in Albany rather than going to Portland.

So, the Committee sets up the regional matchups (which region meets which region) before it selects the teams? It seems to me it would be more equitable to match the regions after the teams are placed, thus allowing for No. 1 overall seed to be on the same side of the bracket as the No. 4 overall seed and overall seeds 2 and 3 to be on the other side.

 

[Plebe]

So, the Committee sets up the regional matchups (which region meets which region) before it selects the teams? It seems to me it would be more equitable to match the regions after the teams are placed, thus allowing for No. 1 overall seed to be on the same side of the bracket as the No. 4 overall seed and overall seeds 2 and 3 to be on the other side.

No. The way you describe it is the way it happens. Seeding comes before placement. The overall #1 is always on the same half as overall #4 (this year that’s Baylor and Miss St), with #2 and #3 on the other half (ND and Louisville).

 

[biobioprof]

Has anyone seen a final ranking from the selection committee of where they put every team?

We know with the one seeds it went:

1. Baylor (goes closest to home, so SC)
2. ND (next closest, so Chicago)
3. Louisville (next closest, so Albany)
4. Miss St (next closest, so Portland)
(and then)
5. UConn
6. Oregon (?)
7. Stanford (?)
8. Iowa

I think the argument is not over whether UConn or Louisville should have been a #1 seed, but whether Miss St or UConn should have been a #1 seed. I think Baylor/ND/Louisville ahead of UConn was never going to change, and I think for all three of them that's justifiable (all have higher RPIs than UConn and better SOS, and two of them have wins over UConn).

I actually think UConn has a much better resume than Miss St, but that would mean UConn is sent out west, with Oregon almost certainly as their #2 in Portland. So here are the most likely options for the team:

Albany: #2 seed, with #1 Louisville
Portland: #1 seed, with #2 Oregon

I'm not a UConn fan, but not sure one seems that much better than the other.

I believe the geography deviation from the S curve is based on a 350 mile cutoff, not just ranking the distances. The 1 and 2 seeds within that distance of a regional, I believe are:
Albany - UConn
Chicago - ND, Louisville, Iowa
Portland - Oregon

This is why the discussion even before yesterday had UConn in Albany and Oregon in Portland as either 1 or 2 seeds. Being within 350 is an all or none thing, so in the discussion of ND and Louisville after the second reveal, they both had an equal case for Chicago even though South Bend is a lot closer.

Baylor, Stanford, and Miss State aren't within 350 of any of the sites. I don't know if the committee considered flipping the regionals for Stanford and Iowa or if some other constraint prevented that.

 

[PacoBlaze]

Not true. It's entirely possible for a MAC team to have a higher overall SOS than a SEC team.

Buffalo has a SOS rank of #48. Auburn's is #71. If Buffalo and Auburn had finished with identical win/loss records, Buffalo's RPI would be higher (factoring out any differential due to home vs. away games). In fact, both teams finished with 9 losses; Buffalo was 23-9 while Auburn was 21-9. But Buffalo's RPI rank was significantly higher (#25 vs. #50).

Another illustrative SEC/MAC comparison: Georgia vs. Kent State. Both teams finished 18-12. Georgia's SOS ranking was #97, while Kent State's was #86. And Kent State's RPI ranking was accordingly higher (#83 vs. #112).

And you are completely missing my point...these things that are used by the Committee, the pundits and you are something that were created for the purpose of selecting and placing the 64 teams in the Tournament.
However it is my belief that the original creators of these formulas were basing their criteria using the P5 Conferences as their benchmarks.
You can bet that if suddenly the mid-major leagues started to dominate multiple FFs and NCs, the selection criteria would be changed.

 

[uconnfan68]

No, I am not wrong. I have my facts correct, and you do not.

You not only got your facts wrong but you then disregarded the correction. Again, you failed to account for UConn's games vs. Seton Hall and Saint Louis. So please, whatever else you continue to say, do not repeat the objective falsehood that UConn only played "one single team" not from a power conference.

But that is beside the larger point, which is that opponents' conference affiliation per se is irrelevant to schedule strength. I repeat: Vanderbilt, Ole Miss and Oklahoma were not good teams this year, by any measure. To pretend that they represent an asset to UConn's schedule is delusional.

The Saint Louis game was a senior’s homecoming game... because no one will schedule UConn. And you can’t determine how your OOC schedule will be years in advance.

 

[uconnfan68]

And you are completely missing my point...these things that are used by the Committee, the pundits and you are something that were created for the purpose of selecting and placing the 64 teams in the Tournament.
However it is my belief that the original creators of these formulas were basing their criteria using the P5 Conferences as their benchmarks.
You can bet that if suddenly the mid-major leagues started to dominate multiple FFs and NCs, the selection criteria would be changed.

A mid-major does have 3 of the last 5 NCs.

 

[IWearShoes]

Gee, there sure is a lot of angst here. In summary...

Baylor, the clear #1 overall seed got sent as close as they could be to home and gets a Regional Final, if seeds hold, vs the clear weakest 2 seed in Iowa.

ND, the pretty clear overall #2, gets sent to the obvious and desireable Chicago regional to play the mostly clear 2nd weakest 2 seed in Stanford, if seeds hold.

Louisville, Mississippi State, UConn & Oregon, the #3-#6 overall seeds to most unbiased eyes (although not necessarily in that order), get distributed so the 1 seeds are traveling, but getting the advantage of playing a 4 seed in the SS. The 2 seeds, UConn and Oregon, are playing 3 seeds in the SS, but they're both close to home, giving them some advantage.

Seems to me the committee did an outstanding job.

 

[MainefanSC]

Seems to me the committee did an outstanding job.[/QUOTE]

Well that's one of you.

 

[IWearShoes]

Seems to me the committee did an outstanding job.

Well that's one of you.[/QUOTE]

What would have been better as far as the Top 8 are concerned?

 

[Golden Husky]

No. The way you describe it is the way it happens. Seeding comes before placement. The overall #1 is always on the same half as overall #4 (this year that’s Baylor and Miss St), with #2 and #3 on the other half (ND and Louisville).

Okay, thanks for the clarification, Plebe. I thought Louisville was the overall #4 but if it's Mississippi State, then I'll put away the pitchfork. Strictly speaking then, Oregon should be the overall #5 and UConn the overall #6 but I'm guessing they may have swapped those two for geographical concerns.

It could be then, for UConn to win a national championship, the Huskies may have to beat the overall #3, #2 and #1 seeds. If that happens, I'd say UConn earned it.

 

[Plebe]

Strictly speaking then, Oregon should be the overall #5 and UConn the overall #6 but I'm guessing they may have swapped those two for geographical concerns.

Not really. The "true seed" is fixed; that is the S-curve. Any concessions to geography don't change a team's true seed, but it can change their regional placement from what strict observance of the S-curve would dictate.

Strictly speaking, UConn as overall #5 should have been sent to Portland to face overall #4 Mississippi State. That's where geography came into play, to UConn's benefit in fact, allowing UConn to stay in Albany rather than having to go to Portland.

 

[IWearShoes]

Okay, thanks for the clarification, Plebe. I thought Louisville was the overall #4 but if it's Mississippi State, then I'll put away the pitchfork. Strictly speaking then, Oregon should be the overall #5 and UConn the overall #6 but I'm guessing they may have swapped those two for geographical concerns.

Also note that Miami is the 4 in Portland. Louisville and Miami are both in the ACC.

Oregon State is the 4 in Albany. Putting Oregon State and Oregon both in Portland would have seemed extremely unfair to the 1 seed.

The other two 4 seeds are Texas A&M and South Carolina, both SEC mates with Mississippi State and not a desired SS matchup.

 

[hussybulldog]

Okay, thanks for the clarification, Plebe. I thought Louisville was the overall #4 but if it's Mississippi State, then I'll put away the pitchfork. Strictly speaking then, Oregon should be the overall #5 and UConn the overall #6 but I'm guessing they may have swapped those two for geographical concerns.
It could be then, for UConn to win a national championship, the Huskies may have to beat the overall #3, #2 and #1 seeds. If that happens, I'd say UConn earned it.

I just finished my bracket at espn, UConn will be the ultimate winner without having to face the overall #1/2/3 as someone else did that for UConn!

 

[PacoBlaze]

A mid-major does have 3 of the last 5 NCs.

I didn't know that we were considered a mid-major when we won 4 of the last 6 NCs.

 

[hoopsfan22]

I didn't know that we were considered a mid-major when we won 4 of the last 6 NCs.

Well the AAC sure as heck isn't a power conference, so where does that leave us?

 

[MainefanSC]

Well that's one of you.

What would have been better as far as the Top 8 are concerned?[/QUOTE]
If I were on the committee I would have an opinion worth listening to. Since I wasn't invited to join the committee, my opinion is just hot air.

 

[biobioprof]

Has anyone seen a final ranking from the selection committee of where they put every team?

We know with the one seeds it went:

1. Baylor (goes closest to home, so SC)
2. ND (next closest, so Chicago)
3. Louisville (next closest, so Albany)
4. Miss St (next closest, so Portland)
(and then)
5. UConn
6. Oregon (?)
7. Stanford (?)
8. Iowa

I think the argument is not over whether UConn or Louisville should have been a #1 seed, but whether Miss St or UConn should have been a #1 seed. I think Baylor/ND/Louisville ahead of UConn was never going to change, and I think for all three of them that's justifiable (all have higher RPIs than UConn and better SOS, and two of them have wins over UConn).

I actually think UConn has a much better resume than Miss St, but that would mean UConn is sent out west, with Oregon almost certainly as their #2 in Portland. So here are the most likely options for the team:

Albany: #2 seed, with #1 Louisville
Portland: #1 seed, with #2 Oregon

I'm not a UConn fan, but not sure one seems that much better than the other.

The geography/distance adjustment doesn’t work that way, IIRC. UConn was going to be in Albany and Oregon

Not really. The "true seed" is fixed; that is the S-curve. Any concessions to geography don't change a team's true seed, but it can change their regional placement from what strict observance of the S-curve would dictate.

Strictly speaking, UConn as overall #5 should have been sent to Portland to face overall #4 Mississippi State. That's where geography came into play, to UConn's benefit in fact, allowing UConn to stay in Albany rather than having to go to Portland.

I suppose they could have put Miss State as the 1 seed in Albany and sent Louisville to Portland. But there are lots of moving parts in making a bracket. I don't know if Vic complaining about getting sent to Albany mattered to the committee.

As others have noted, UConn's seed complaint should be comparing to Miss State more than comparing to Louisville. After the second reveal UConn was #4 overall and Miss State was #6. So, to me, the committee is basing Miss State taking UConn's 1 seed entirely on the conference tourneys, which makes the discussion of prior nonconference SoS irrelevant.

 

[TheFarmFan]

TBH, I don't understand why Huskies fans are so upset. The key thing was getting to stay in Albany, which you are. Whether you're the 1 seed or the 2 seed matters not one lick apart from the slight benefit of getting to play a 4 seed instead of a 3 seed, and in the case of the Albany regional, I'd actually rather face 3 seed Maryland than 4 seed OSU - the latter is more dangerous, much better coached, and has a history of pulling off March surprises (though I would not be *at all* surprised if you end up playing UCLA instead Maryland).

Moreover, you guys get what I think is the weakest of the 1 seeds - Louisville, and will get them for what will feel like a home game. I think you'd match up far more poorly against Miss St., so if you had been the last 1 seed, and they were the 2 seed for Albany, I'd say your final four chances would be weaker. For a team that finished 3-2 vs. the Top 25, that's not bad position to be in.

(By comparison, we went 7-2 against the Top 25, including getting the only win over the overall #1 seed, and ended up getting placed against Notre Dame in what will feel like an away game two time zones away in Chicago, if we are fortunate enough to get that far.)

So while you may be nominally a 2 seed, your route to the final four couldn't have been better than if you were a 1 seed, and I'm fairly confident Notre Dame is less excited to see Stanford again, and Miss. St. less excited to play Oregon in Portland. The only team with a better route is Baylor, and they're the overall #1, so that's as it should be.